The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 1954 235 head work on a 1960 block?

Sorry if the answer is too simple, I just don't want to make a big mistake here.

Trying to get a '53 3100 running. I got it with no motor, but found a complete 1954 235 motor and a 235 block from 1960.

The block and crank on the 54 have been machined before and are at maximum. The 60 block has never been touched so is a good candidate for a rebuild per the machine shop.

So, is my 1954 head going to work on the 1960 block? I can't see that it won't, but I'm new at this (my shop works on all the new stuff - both easier AND harder than these!) and defer to your experience for an answer. Casting # on the head is 3836848.

The obvious block differences with water pump type (the 60 appears to have WAY better coolant flow) are obvious. Is there anything else I need to be aware of as far as mounting the 1954 parts on it?

Thank you. I'm in awe at the collective wisdom I've seen here in just the past few days on here!

A 1954 235 head will work on a 1960 235 block.

Your head code is from a 1956-1962 235 head.

The location of the 1960 water pump in a 47-55 truck is not ideal for cooling. A water-pump relocation plate is available.

Does the replacement block have front motor-mount holes in the same location as on the engine in your truck?

Thank you for the info!

I'll check on the motor mount holes. My uneducated eyes saw they were the same but I'll measure for sure.

Lots of the article below should really help you. The water pump adapter plate and listed water pump is a good idea. I would sure go with the 1960 block and 848 head. Best compression head available and since the block hasn't been bored out yet, it just doesn't get any better than that! Good Luck!

http://devestechnet.com/Home/Project1959235

Also, if full flow oiling is something you want, while at the machine shop, for another 100$, they will do that for you.

You read my mind on the oiling! I forwarded your article on it this morning to my machine shop, and am ordering the kit tomorrow! Love those articles!

Where did the myth originate that pumping the oil outside the engine, through a filter that's designed to strain out rocks, marbles, and medium-sized boulders, then back into the block, before getting to the parts that need to be lubricated is somehow better than sending the majority of the oil directly to the bearings?

Until somebody comes up with a way to adapt a higher-volume oil pump to a stovebolt engine, I question the necessity, and/or the wisdom of doing the "full flow" modification.
Jerry

Modern cars do it, and the engines last a long time.

There's a reason the manufacturers went to full-flow oil filtering, and on these older engines I don't see how volume makes any difference.

If you are taking 100% of the oil and putting it through a 20-40 micron filter that has an anti-drainback valve on it (most all do), then you aren't starving the bearings for oil (even at start-up), and you're removing all of the junk that the oil can't suspend - the same junk that eventually eats your bearings and cylinder walls in an unfiltered or bypass filtered system.

I question the wisdom of having open slits in the valve cover for all kinds of road grime to get into your engine and then filtering only 15% of the oil. GM evolved and we are too.

The more closed and looped your system is, the better. Full flow filtering, PCV, and a breather cap on the valve cover is the best chance we have of not paying mega-bucks for another premature engine rebuild. Not sure why anyone even uses a bypass filter. Which 15% of the oil is it filtering? Better than nothing, but only 15% better than nothing. We have a great mod that one of our Bolters did that needs to be done at machine shop time here:

http://devestechnet.com/Home/FullFlowOil

There will be an entire overhaul of this page in the next few weeks to add more goodies including a few bypass spin-on filter solutions (of course as always you can build yourself). Stay tuned.

The stovebolt oil pumps can barely keep up with the demand for oil with the current flow route. Check the oil pressure at hot idle with an accurate pressure gauge sometime. Adding a couple of feet of flex line and a spin-on filter design that allows most of the oil to drain back to the oil pan every time the engine shuts down is foolish. Making a modification just because it's something new and different without upgrading the volume of the pump cannot be good for the overall good health of the engine.
Jerry

The 261 full flow system uses the exact same oil pump with larger displacement and larger hoses, so I think we are good to go here. Then they put the filter clear up on the manifold. The spin-on arrangement is about even with the bottom of the oil pan. Thanks for your concern, but I think we got this.

You meant to say bypass system I think.

If "You" means Deve, Deve is referring to the full-flow filter system (original full-flow filter; or, his assembly on an original full-flow 261; or, an engine adapted for full-flow).

It is not clear which stovebolt engines/pumps HrL is referring to.

My good-condition stovebolt engines with stock oil pumps maintain oil pressure at idle (these are good-condition engines).

In particular, my 1960 261 with original full-flow filter canister (or, with a spin-on filter head) maintains oil pressure at idle on a warmed-up engine.

However, my worn-out 54 235 showed no pressure at idle - I read this as time for a rebuild (done).

Maybe the 216? The 235 even has a relief valve. If you are getting 30psi and you have never seen it higher than that, it's because the excess bleeds off through a valve incorporated in the pump.

The reason for the full flow mod being feasible is the 235 uses the same oil pump and relief system as the 261 (full flow OR bypass) so we can be assured there is enough pump there to do the job.

So much so, they even mount the canister and original 1/2" lines up high on the engine. My contraption puts it lower on the block and uses 3/8" lines to keep things more balanced.

The 216 engine may be another story. It is not a candidate for a full flow modification. At least not with my current level of expertise.

Maybe a 216 or an older (low-pressure) 235 or a worn-out newer 235/261?

Don't discount the bypass system so easily. Not trying to force all the oil thru the filter at once allows for much, much finer media and all the oil will pass thru within a couple minutes. I use an Amsoil bypass filter that is 98% efficient at 2 microns and can guarantee my oil is far cleaner than any of Deve's schemes with no block modification.
Nearly all spin on filters have a disc and spring that will allow dirty oil to pass on by anytime in/out pressure differential exceeds spring pressure so for this reason I believe the full flow modification adds nothing more than a false sense of security.

First of all, its not "Deve's" schemes, its Bruce Child's, another Bolter that was so gracious as to document the full flow mod. The spin on filter is the mainstay for all of today's engines. They do such a good job that we can do upwards of 300,000 miles on today's engines. That is in part due to the superior cleaning quality of today's filters. That spring pressure you are talking about is an emergency valve placed there in case of a serious imbalance which, in theory, should never happen.

GM got rid of the bypass system for a reason. It filters 15% or so of the oil and you never know which 15% it is filtering. You could have unfiltered oil from the last oil change still just sitting there. All of the gunk in the bottom of your canister is also in the bottom of your oil pan. Full flow systems have much less gunk in the oil pan and all of the crankcase gases and misc dirt are filtered. 100% of it.

It is NOT my scheme, its GM's scheme. They evolved. Like I said before over and over, Bypass works. They didnt even come from GM with a filter at all. It was a dealer installed item if you wanted one. They learned the hard way from the many trashed engines before their time that they needed to re-examine their filtering and here we are with todays amazing results. Its not defend-able that bypass systems are better than full flow. But its admirable when I see stock systems that people work really hard to keep stock by changing their oil regularly and doing the maintenance required.

The new crop of admirers and owners of these vehicles are not like the old ones. They do not wish to spend their time doing maintenance. If we can preserve their trucks by doing a little preventive modification, the next generation will still have them to enjoy.

I thought that was why they made the 350...

I don't know why Caso, but when I am at a car show and see an AD with a 350 in it, I just walk right past it. Its personal preference, so no need for you HiPo guys to get defensive, but I will take a nice well preserved 6 banger for an AD every time. . Where my efforts are focused is on keeping these old engines well preserved. MANY thanks to people here for contributing.

A few corrections/clarification related to statements in Deve's post:

By-pass filter do filter all the oil after a short period of operation. Hydraulic engineers could calculate how long it would take for 99+% of the oil to have passed through the by-pass filter (I have seen charts, but am not interested in finding them). This is a fact.

The gunk that settles out is predominantly due to the fact that most pre-54 (and later, I'd bet) engines used non-detergent oils. Non-detergent oils do not hold contaminants in suspension, as do detergent oils.
- Run a high-pressure 235/261 with non-detergent oil. "Gunk" will precipitate out in the pan and in the oil filter.
- Run any 216/235/261 with a by-pass filter and detergent oil. Particulates will get filtered out of the oil.

Note that GM started to suggest in 1952 that (Heavy-Duty Type) detergent oil could/should be used in heavy-duty service conditions.

Also added to the gunk were the slits in the valve cover causing all of the road dirt under the hood to get sucked into the vent slits. This was fixed by another GM evolution, the PCV system. There is a reason these things evolved. I know here in Kansas on the farms these trucks were in the shop alot because during wheat season, the dust was so bad and hay season when the truck is out there in the dust running all day moving the baler, they just sucked unreal amounts of dirt into the engine. Every single AD I have and have seen around here has a new style 235 in it with closed valve covers. I do not mean to disrespect anyone's stock truck. I keep saying it because its important. If you like your stock system keep it, but it's not even worth arguing over bypass systems being better than full flow. They are better than how GM sent them to the dealers. That's about it.

Someday I would love to see statistics on how GM can say that all of the oil is being filtered and not just that oil that is closest to the sump. But even if true, it's not efficient and GM realized that 55+ years ago. Just after they ditched splash oiling and babbit bearings. It's all evolution as it should be. We learn so much from it too.:)

Hmmm, my 1958 stock truck came with a split valve cover. I wonder why they didn't bother changing them on GMC's?

I imagine running any truck all day in granny is gonna carbon things up no matter what you do no?

You are right about being concerned about the slits in the 1954 (1955-1st?) and earlier valve covers.

Regarding: What does that mean?
What engine?
What oil.
What filtration system?

- Are you referring to an engine that uses non-detergent oil.
There would be a problem, This is probably what you mean? However, this system does filter all oil, eventually, but will not get the sludge out.

- Are you referring to an engine using detergent oil?
There would be no more of a problem than in your system

- Are you criticizing the pump used in the GM by-pass (or full-flow) systems.
If so, your system has the same problem/feature?

- Are you afraid that your system (or, any system) only filters oil closest to the pump?
Do you think that the oil in the pan is not well-circulated in the pan (sloshed around), when you drive, turn, stop? Maybe so, if non-detergent oil is being used (no matter what pump and what filtration system is used).

CASO,

Does your GMC engine have a PCV system?

It does now...

I am always curious Tim, wanting to know more. I do not put as much faith in detergent vs non-detergent as you do. A bypass system with 1/8" NPT (small) lines that is reduced to 1/16" and oil pressure is 15 psi (216) or even 30 psi (later) is just so slow and insignificant, I can't see much oil moving through it at all, let alone claims of it passing all of the oil over time. Any system that depends on splashing from driving creating enough current to mix filtered with unfiltered to fight for its turn to be close to the inlet of the pump is just antiquated. Which IT IS!

Fastforward to 2015 where we now know, with 100% certainty that Bypass oiling (like splash oiling, etc) is insufficient and a primary cause for premature engine wear. Since it's so easy at machine shop time to modify the new style 235's and 261's to do what modern systems are so successful doing, it's the best $100 you can spend.

Even if Bypass is your only choice (due to your rule for keeping it stock, economics, or it's not machine shop time), putting the filter up on the manifold, causing even more strain on the pumping system seems like another weak link. Putting it as low as the oil pan so it doesn't have to work its way upward twice seems prudent.

Crankcase gasses mix with the oil, dirt is introduced through the slits in the cover, road tube (since it's negative until you drive 30mph) and then all the dirt has to pass through a 1/16" orifice on a bypass schedule. It's all preventable using what GM has learned over the past 50+ years.

On one of my trucks I don't care about any of that. Like some of you, I want to keep it 100% stock because being a good steward of the hobby means doing the maintenance required to keep it in perfect condition as they were when they were new. Who is so lazy they can't change the oil and filter at regular intervals?

ME! The daily driver I am creating will not be like that at all. It will use only as much modern technology as is necessary for as close to maintenance free as possible. How much fun can one person possibly have?

The 300,000 miles on today's engines has so little to do with which type of oil filter is on it, that it is not significant enough to even mention.
The actual reasons for longer engine life is computer managed fuel injection, electronic ignition (in place of points), and an array of sensors to modulate timing and fuel delivery to account for constant changes in demand.
Carl

Deve, are you saying if I put a spinner instead of theoriginal filter on my stock rebuilt 270 I can get 300K out of it?
I ask cause one leg is feeling longer than the other...

"I can't see much oil moving through it at all, let alone claims of it passing all of the oil over time. Any system that depends on splashing from driving creating enough current to mix filtered with unfiltered to fight for its turn to be close to the inlet of the pump is just antiquated."

Can't argue against those understandings and beliefs.

LOL! No, that's why I said 'in part because of' in there. I realize engine tech has come a long way. I am just saying the quality of oil filtration has come a long way in 50+ years. Even the spin-ons of the 1970's weren't as good as what we have now. Clean internals is a huge factor.

But really, to be able to say for certain you would get longer engine life it would have to be considered as a system. Full Flow mod with 3/8" lines and the filter placed low to put less stress on the pump, PCV to remove the crankcase gasses that by themselves are bad for the engine, let alone when mixed with the oil, and good quality modern oil and I think I can expect a lot more mileage from the engine. We will see. I also feel more precise detonation of the fuel mixture will help too.

I know I feel much better knowing that from the oil pump pickup, ALL of the oil goes immediately into the filter before it ever reaches engine internals. It doesn't get better than that.

Can the forum powers that be please add this emoticon to our options?

http://s551.photobucket.com/user/bluecynder/media/Emoticons/Beating_A_Dead_Horse.gif.html

Jerry

Here's what Bob the oil guy says about the bypass valve:



"The Bypass Valve

Under ideal conditions, the bypass valve will never open. When it opens, the oil by passes the filter and goes on through to the motor, obviously unfiltered. It is a safety valve. However, in real operation, it opens often.

One example is when you start the motor when cold. The oil is thick and does not pass easily through the filtration medium, thus building up to a high pressure drop. So, the bypass valve opens to prevent oil-starvation of the motor. How long it stays open is dependent on how cold the oil is and how long it takes to get near operating temperature. When the pressure drop across the filtration medium drops below the bypass valve setting.

Another example can occur when the motor is fully warmed. At idle, the oil pressure is about 15 to 20 psi, and the pressure drop across the filter is about 1 or 2 psi. You take off towards the redline, and quickly build oil pressure. During that full-throttle acceleration the pressure drop across the filter will exceed the bypass setting, and send unfiltered oil to the motor, until the pressure across the filter has time to equalize. During a drag race, shifting through the gears, the bypass will open several times.

A third example, which you should never experience with frequent oil and filter changes, is when a filter becomes clogged. A spin-on filter can commonly hold 10 to 20 grams of trash before it becomes fully clogged. The bypass valve opening is the only way to keep the motor from becoming oil-starved if the filter becomes clogged.

According to Purolator, the Honda OEM filter bypass setting is 12 to 14 psi. WIX (NAPA Gold) builds their oil filters with a bypass setting of 8 to 11 psi, while AC Delco builds theirs to a setting of 11 to 17 psi. How much do these differences matter? I don't think anyone knows, even the engineers, and each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

If you do lots of racing, you're probably better off with a higher bypass setting.
If you do lots of *cold* starting, especially in the winter, or seldom change your filter, I think you're better off with a lower bypass setting. However, with few exceptions, bypass pressures for spin-on filters run in the 8 to 17 psi range, and any of them should work acceptably."

Balloon. Popped.

Thats great information! Some of these things I knew, others not. Thanks for that. Since the oil circulates through the filter 100% of the time the engine is running, a few cycles where it bypasses is just fine with me. Since operation is continuous, its doing the job I had intended. There is only one path out of the oil pump and that is through the filter. So if it misses a few ounces here, the next cycle will pick it up, so its good they have a valve in them because otherwise if it clogged, I would be up the creek only having the one path.

Thanks Curt!

And Caso I know you would like to live long enough to see me make a mistake, but don't let life pass you by. We are all supposedly friends here. If you have a Bypass system on your old truck it isn't even in contention for best filtering possible. If this is the system they currently put in Lamborghini, Maserati, Chevy, Ford and Subaru, to this date, I am okay with my old truck having it I guess. Have fun! That's what its all about right?

"I made a mistake once. Yeah, I thought I made a mistake and I really didn't" LOL!

Deve, If I had a modern oil pump in my engine I'd accept the premise but as was stated earlier that isn't an option. So I see an apples and oranges debate taking place.
Sorry but I'm not evolved enough to accept that type of debate. I'm all about the segregation of Apples and Oranges

So I'm left with your claims which (no offence intended) smack of efforts at self promotion/redirection for your website vrs the advice of established reasoned knowledgeable folk i.e Bob the oil guy and others.
If friends can't give friends do do caw caw then they're not really friends in my experience.

No worries, I'm OK with you running your system too.

Exactly!The tech tip for that mod has been right here on Stovebolt.com for many years. Did you obtain permission from Bruce Childs to harvest the pictures and documentation he donated here for your website or did you just help yourself so you could sell kits? It would appear that at least one bolter knows what I mean when I refer to your “schemes”.

It could be exactly as you guys portray me. I can see where that thought might occur. Nobody that knows me thinks that. I field about 3-4 phone calls every day from guys all over the country asking me questions that could be answered here. I just take the time to help them because it is what I decided to devote my retirement to. You come to me and I help free of charge.

In fact, every How-To article on my website has detailed instructions on how to make everything that I make. Then if you don't have the shop to make it yourself, I will make it for you. The formula is cost plus $20. $10 goes to the Stovebolt for everything I sell (which isn't much) and the other $10 I put in my research fund for the next project. John and Peggy are fully aware of how I operate. I get permission from everyone before ever embarking down any road that's already been traveled.

Maybe you guys have me all wrong and I am just someone who likes the friendships and the comraderie that comes with helping others? I know that can create jealousy and all sorts of social problems from some corners where people think that I should do even more.

Everything on my website has been donated from other caring individuals who I come in contact with from time to time. There isn't a self serving bone in my body. It's why my wife and I don't live extravagantly. You guys are thinking as if it's 2015 and everyone is suspect. Not everyone is hateful and trys to make life difficult. Some write about it so others can benefit. You should try it sometime and you would have less time to look at others in a bad light. Then again, sometimes you have to step up and fight when others try to make you look bad. I do not see any positive benefit in taking this subject any further. I am busy trying to make sense out of technologies that we can use for our truck hobby. Not everyone cares, and that's fine, but what do you get out of trying to throw a wrench in the process? I already know the answer.

The reason that many of the wrenches are thrown into Deve's process is due to many errors, and self-contrived conclusions based on thin air. Even when multiple sources point these things out, he seems to nod his head yes, yet continues to make the same assertions time after time.
He claims to welcome constructive criticism, yet is often hesitant to actually accept it.
Why should I, or anyone else care?
Because he has a blog which is directly linkable on every page on this site which directly diverts people away from this site to his site, short-circuiting them from the benefit of the many experts on this site.
With all due respect,
Carl
(Not one of the many experts mentioned above , BTW.)

No errors whatsoever have been reported by anyone on any articles that I have written or the many contributors to my website. Everything is vetted carefully and then ran past everyone here. You only get arguments from a select few on the conclusions. You have to make a decision on whether to go with an article or shelve it based on the input. If the same people are crying foul every time, a pattern becomes apparent. It's all good. I have resources all over who vet these things properly.

Its called "target=_blank". Each time you visit my website from ANY link posted on Stovebolt, a NEW window comes up with my website making sure you do not lose your place here. Its just the right way to program things and that way nobody here can cry foul. Keeping things honest and above board is the only way. Going out of your way to try to disprove things is becoming what you and a few others are known for. Painting yourself as someone on a vendetta won't serve you or anyone else in a positive way.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see". Who recommended pulling a harmonic balancer by using a 3-jaw puller on the outer ring in his engine disassembly "instructions"? I don't think that error has been corrected.
Jerry